3 ms·

Again, just for the sake of fun/discussion. Not trying to make any significant point here. > You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil dis

Again, just for the sake of fun/discussion. Not trying to make any significant point here. > You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Is this a point of observation ("I've never heard of a company doing this"), law ("Companies have no legal grounds to claim civil disobedience"), or logic ("companies cannot act, only its constituent humans act")? If it's the first, I'm claiming to give you a contradictory observation. If it's the second, you yourself said that civil disobedience has no legal significance anyway (just a possible source of sympathy when it comes time for the judge's discretion) so in this sense I don't see why a human's civil disobedience is any more real than a company's. If it's the third, fair enough, but it wasn't clear to me that this was your point.

gotothedoctor 10y ago
It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment. While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations. Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.
- orblivion 10y ago
  Got it. When you had said that it would mitigate punishment, I assumed you meant in a purely unofficial subjective way. Thanks.
  - gotothedoctor 10y ago
    could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
- raleighm 9y ago
  > "cannot be used to do the same for corporations" What is the basis of that "cannot"? Sentencing guidelines? Inference from cases where it was asserted but rejected because it came from a corporation? Edit: Not asking for a citation. Just want to understand the basis for your view, because the point is an important one (current context aside) and your responses thus far about it feel circular (e.g., doesn't apply because it's irrelevant).

gotothedoctor 10y ago

It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment. While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations. Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.

orblivion 10y ago
Got it. When you had said that it would mitigate punishment, I assumed you meant in a purely unofficial subjective way. Thanks.
- gotothedoctor 10y ago
  could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
raleighm 9y ago
> "cannot be used to do the same for corporations" What is the basis of that "cannot"? Sentencing guidelines? Inference from cases where it was asserted but rejected because it came from a corporation? Edit: Not asking for a citation. Just want to understand the basis for your view, because the point is an important one (current context aside) and your responses thus far about it feel circular (e.g., doesn't apply because it's irrelevant).